Notes

7 Useful Tips For Making The Greatest Use Of Your Pragmatic
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. 프라그마틱 focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.


The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.

Homepage: https://pragmatickr.com/